March 20, 2006
Fuck The Troops
But when he sought counseling at a Veterans Affairs hospital near his home in Virginia Beach, Va., he said he felt like the message was, "Take a number." He said he's been waiting several weeks for a counseling appointment and was told by one doctor it could be two months before getting in.
"I say to them, 'Why?' And they say back to me that, 'Unfortunately, it's because of all you guys coming back, and we just can't handle you. It's nothing personal. It's just the way it is,'" Provost, 27, recalled.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:23 PM
| Comments (5)
"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," sez Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Donald H. was taken to task subsequent to these remarks by two who oughta know: Hammerin' Hank Kissinger, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Zbiggy even went so far as to call H. Rumsfeld bat-shit loony-tunes: "That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history."
So how did the two experts demonstrate their expert knowledge of history?
Kissinger: "In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement."
Brzezinski: "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."
In other words, Rumsfeld is correct, according to our expert nay-sayers, in assigning the German role to Iraq. Correct, even though any six-year-old child could tell you that it was the United States that launched an unprovoked invasion, and not the other way around.
What Kissinger and Brzezinski (or at any rate the latter, who at least has in recent years demonstrated something of a capacity for logical thinking) should have said is that "turning our backs" on post-war Iraq to-day would be the modern equivalent of handing post-war France back to the French. And, further, that withdrawal doesn't have to equal "turning our backs": we ought, in addition, to pay reparations to our victims; just as Iraq itself is still paying reparations to Kuwait.
This is almost too obvious to even waste time posting about. But if CNN can let it pass without comment, perhaps it's not quite too obvious.
Ask The Experts
"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," sez Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Donald H. was taken to task subsequent to these remarks by two who oughta know: Hammerin' Hank Kissinger, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Zbiggy even went so far as to call H. Rumsfeld bat-shit loony-tunes: "That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history."
So how did the two experts demonstrate their expert knowledge of history?
Kissinger: "In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement."
Brzezinski: "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."
In other words, Rumsfeld is correct, according to our expert nay-sayers, in assigning the German role to Iraq. Correct, even though any six-year-old child could tell you that it was the United States that launched an unprovoked invasion, and not the other way around.
What Kissinger and Brzezinski (or at any rate the latter, who at least has in recent years demonstrated something of a capacity for logical thinking) should have said is that "turning our backs" on post-war Iraq to-day would be the modern equivalent of handing post-war France back to the French. And, further, that withdrawal doesn't have to equal "turning our backs": we ought, in addition, to pay reparations to our victims; just as Iraq itself is still paying reparations to Kuwait.
This is almost too obvious to even waste time posting about. But if CNN can let it pass without comment, perhaps it's not quite too obvious.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:35 PM
| Comments (0)
"...the United States remains firmly committed to the defense of Iceland." -- Scott McClellan
March 17, 2006
Thank God For Small Miracles
"...the United States remains firmly committed to the defense of Iceland." -- Scott McClellan
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:54 PM
| Comments (0)
The Pentagon's official watchdog will investigate allegations by Halliburton Co. water experts that their company endangered U.S. troops in Iraq by failing to provide safe shower and laundry water.
The most serious allegation came from the company's water treatment manager in the war zone whose internal report said troops and civilians in Iraq were left vulnerable to "mass sickness or death".
A former Halliburton water expert who found contamination at the Ar Ramadi base a year ago said he was told by superiors not to advise the military or senior company officials of his discovery.
March 16, 2006
Fuck The Troops
The Pentagon's official watchdog will investigate allegations by Halliburton Co. water experts that their company endangered U.S. troops in Iraq by failing to provide safe shower and laundry water.
The most serious allegation came from the company's water treatment manager in the war zone whose internal report said troops and civilians in Iraq were left vulnerable to "mass sickness or death".
A former Halliburton water expert who found contamination at the Ar Ramadi base a year ago said he was told by superiors not to advise the military or senior company officials of his discovery.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:24 PM
| Comments (0)
It's a bit difficult to parse the sentence ("depart from that respect that we should not torture"?). But if he's saying what he appears to be saying, he's acknowledging the long history of U.S. and U.S.-supported torture operations -- from the colonisation of the continent, to the "reconcentration camps" in the Philippines, to the "strategic hamlets" in Vietnam, to the "Salvador option" in Central America, to the "Dirty wars" in South America, to the support of barbarous dictators in the likes of Indonesia, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Uzbekistan, the Caribbean, Palestine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Presumably, our "good friend" and "ally" in the "War On Terror", the un-elected President of Pakistan, engages in the practice as well.
But none of that shit matters because it hadn't, until now, been "official policy". Uhm, okay Al. Thanks for caring.
March 13, 2006
Dipshit Is As Dipshit Does
"In every war there have been excesses ... that have come out of the extremes of combat and war," Gore said. "But never previously has it been official U.S. policy to depart from that respect that we should not torture."
It's a bit difficult to parse the sentence ("depart from that respect that we should not torture"?). But if he's saying what he appears to be saying, he's acknowledging the long history of U.S. and U.S.-supported torture operations -- from the colonisation of the continent, to the "reconcentration camps" in the Philippines, to the "strategic hamlets" in Vietnam, to the "Salvador option" in Central America, to the "Dirty wars" in South America, to the support of barbarous dictators in the likes of Indonesia, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Uzbekistan, the Caribbean, Palestine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Presumably, our "good friend" and "ally" in the "War On Terror", the un-elected President of Pakistan, engages in the practice as well.
But none of that shit matters because it hadn't, until now, been "official policy". Uhm, okay Al. Thanks for caring.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:06 PM
| Comments (0)
• "I just want to reiterate our position, which is, we don't torture." -- Scott McClellan, December 8, 2005
• "And the President has been very up front talking about the challenges and the difficulties that we face. You heard him Friday. I encourage you to listen very closely to his remarks, because he will talk about how this is a serious situation." -- Scott McClellan, March 13, 2006
Ah, Scottie: another self-contradiction, my man? This one a most fiendish contradiction, indeed (as even those who listen casually to the President's remarks would surely attest).
Then And Now
• "I just want to reiterate our position, which is, we don't torture." -- Scott McClellan, December 8, 2005
• "And the President has been very up front talking about the challenges and the difficulties that we face. You heard him Friday. I encourage you to listen very closely to his remarks, because he will talk about how this is a serious situation." -- Scott McClellan, March 13, 2006
Ah, Scottie: another self-contradiction, my man? This one a most fiendish contradiction, indeed (as even those who listen casually to the President's remarks would surely attest).
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:26 PM
| Comments (0)
Good:
Bad:
What You Can Do: Contact the Tribune's Ombudsman, asking it to reconsider its decision. Besides spying on others, the CIA is responsible for killings, torturing, maiming, and overthrowing democratically elected governments. What's more, it's essentially out of public control, a tool of the executive branch; and much of its budget is not made public. Its activities often come to light only after a thirty-year waiting period for declassification of documents -- and even three decades is deemed insufficient wait for some of its more notorious adventures.
The CIA is a blot on our society whose existence soils any delusions of a democratic American polity. An opportunity for the public to cripple its functioning is like finding gold at the end of a rainbow.
Expose all the spies!
If doing so would put individual agents' persons at risk, then give some sort of fair warning -- say one month -- that the exposure will take place.
March 12, 2006
Some Good News, Some Bad News
Good:
She is 52, married, grew up in the Kansas City, Mo., suburbs and lives in Virginia, in a new three-bedroom house.
Anyone who can qualify for a subscription to an online service that compiles public information also can learn that she is a CIA employee who, in the past decade, has been assigned to several U.S. embassies in Europe. [...]
When the [Chicago] Tribune searched a commercial online-data service, the result was a virtual directory of more than 2,600 CIA employees, 50 internal agency telephone numbers and the locations of about 24 secret CIA facilities around the United States.
Only recently has the CIA recognized that in the Internet Age, its traditional system of providing cover for clandestine employees working overseas is fraught with holes, a discovery said to have "horrified" CIA Director Porter Goss.
Bad:
The CIA asked the Chicago Tribune not to publish her name because she is a covert operative, and the newspaper agreed. [...]
The Tribune is not disclosing the identities of any of the CIA employees uncovered in its database searches, the searching techniques used or other details that might put agency employees or operatives at risk.
What You Can Do: Contact the Tribune's Ombudsman, asking it to reconsider its decision. Besides spying on others, the CIA is responsible for killings, torturing, maiming, and overthrowing democratically elected governments. What's more, it's essentially out of public control, a tool of the executive branch; and much of its budget is not made public. Its activities often come to light only after a thirty-year waiting period for declassification of documents -- and even three decades is deemed insufficient wait for some of its more notorious adventures.
The CIA is a blot on our society whose existence soils any delusions of a democratic American polity. An opportunity for the public to cripple its functioning is like finding gold at the end of a rainbow.
Expose all the spies!
If doing so would put individual agents' persons at risk, then give some sort of fair warning -- say one month -- that the exposure will take place.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:37 AM
| Comments (0)
Q But, Scott, I'm sorry, are you watching something different than we are? Because as far as we can tell, the congressional leadership has said, it's dead. The President has issued a veto threat heretofore, and yet it's our understanding that he did not repeat that during today's meeting, so --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.
Q So why not? Why didn't he repeat it during the meeting?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, because we're focused on how we can move ahead together, and how we can resolve this matter. And that's what I was just stressing to you.
* * *
Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.
* * *
The Republican Congress that marched behind President Bush during his first term is now running away from him.
The GOP rebellion over the Dubai ports deal is the latest and most dramatic example. But from Katrina cleanup to domestic surveillance to Medicare cuts, Republicans increasingly have been refusing to move in step with the White House.
March 09, 2006
Political Capital
Q But, Scott, I'm sorry, are you watching something different than we are? Because as far as we can tell, the congressional leadership has said, it's dead. The President has issued a veto threat heretofore, and yet it's our understanding that he did not repeat that during today's meeting, so --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. Q So why not? Why didn't he repeat it during the meeting?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, because we're focused on how we can move ahead together, and how we can resolve this matter. And that's what I was just stressing to you.
Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.
The Republican Congress that marched behind President Bush during his first term is now running away from him.
The GOP rebellion over the Dubai ports deal is the latest and most dramatic example. But from Katrina cleanup to domestic surveillance to Medicare cuts, Republicans increasingly have been refusing to move in step with the White House.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:10 PM
| Comments (0)
* * *
Separated At Birth?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:45 PM
| Comments (0)
One wonders just how many outrages it will take until the "hundredth monkey" will tell the IRS to go fuck itself. Taxation without representation, thy name, to-day, is the United States Congress:
A "victory", is it? We're reminded of Bill Clinton's (remember him) positively Rumsfeldian reaction to the ransacking of the Delaney Clause (which had outlawed all carcinogenic materials in processed foods): "...infants and young people are particularly vulnerable to pesticides; chemicals can go a long way in a small body."
And here's how fucking stupid the members of Congress think we are. The justification given for overturning the laws is as follows:
Uh huh, and the reason we can't impose a universal Federal standard as strict as California's (Gee-Dub and friends have, after all, promised, on so many occasions that we've lost count, to "move heaven and earth" in order "protect" the American people) is?
Assuming the Senate will follow the House's lead, what if California were to tell the Bush Administration to get bent? As-of 2003, California received a return of only 78 cents for every dollar paid in Federal taxes; so it surely wouldn't be any great economic burden if the World's seventh-largest economy (or whatever it is) were to go its own way.
What is Dubya going to do, invade California? Fat chance: California is as big as the country of Iraq, and the terrain is possibly as unforgiving. Besides, he'll need all the National Guard he can muster all summer long to protect the Gulf Coast's oil infrastructure against Mother Nature.
The time for an all-out tax revolt is upon us, is it not?
States' Rights
One wonders just how many outrages it will take until the "hundredth monkey" will tell the IRS to go fuck itself. Taxation without representation, thy name, to-day, is the United States Congress:
The House approved a bill Wednesday night that would wipe out state laws on safety labeling of food, overriding tough rules passed by California voters two decades ago that require food producers to warn consumers about cancer-causing ingredients.
The vote was a victory for the food industry, which has lobbied for years for national standards for food labeling and contributed millions of dollars to lawmakers' campaigns.
A "victory", is it? We're reminded of Bill Clinton's (remember him) positively Rumsfeldian reaction to the ransacking of the Delaney Clause (which had outlawed all carcinogenic materials in processed foods): "...infants and young people are particularly vulnerable to pesticides; chemicals can go a long way in a small body."
And here's how fucking stupid the members of Congress think we are. The justification given for overturning the laws is as follows:
"There is no reason nor is there any excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency to drive up costs and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that may affect their health," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga..
Uh huh, and the reason we can't impose a universal Federal standard as strict as California's (Gee-Dub and friends have, after all, promised, on so many occasions that we've lost count, to "move heaven and earth" in order "protect" the American people) is?
Assuming the Senate will follow the House's lead, what if California were to tell the Bush Administration to get bent? As-of 2003, California received a return of only 78 cents for every dollar paid in Federal taxes; so it surely wouldn't be any great economic burden if the World's seventh-largest economy (or whatever it is) were to go its own way.
What is Dubya going to do, invade California? Fat chance: California is as big as the country of Iraq, and the terrain is possibly as unforgiving. Besides, he'll need all the National Guard he can muster all summer long to protect the Gulf Coast's oil infrastructure against Mother Nature.
The time for an all-out tax revolt is upon us, is it not?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:14 PM
| Comments (0)
"If I hear any more nonsense from either of you," Paul said, "I'll give the order that'll destroy all spice production on Arrakis...forever."
"Are you mad?" the tall Guildsman demanded. He fell back half a step.
"You grant that I have the power to do this thing, then?" Paul asked.
The Guildsman seemed to stare into space for a moment, then: "Yes, you could do it, but you must not." -- Frank Herbert, Dune
* * *
"A handful of small attacks made against Saudi infrastructure could push oil well over $100 a barrel," says John Robb, an independent analyst and author of the forthcoming book Global Guerrillas. "Twenty or so a month will keep it there. We are about to see the rise of a shadow OPEC. The control of oil doesn't rest in the hands of the governments. It is in the hands of the guerrillas that can stop the flow."
March 08, 2006
Life Imitates Art
"If I hear any more nonsense from either of you," Paul said, "I'll give the order that'll destroy all spice production on Arrakis...forever."
"Are you mad?" the tall Guildsman demanded. He fell back half a step.
"You grant that I have the power to do this thing, then?" Paul asked.
The Guildsman seemed to stare into space for a moment, then: "Yes, you could do it, but you must not." -- Frank Herbert, Dune
"A handful of small attacks made against Saudi infrastructure could push oil well over $100 a barrel," says John Robb, an independent analyst and author of the forthcoming book Global Guerrillas. "Twenty or so a month will keep it there. We are about to see the rise of a shadow OPEC. The control of oil doesn't rest in the hands of the governments. It is in the hands of the guerrillas that can stop the flow."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:55 PM
| Comments (0)
My guesses:
1. When it would mean not bombing niggers. 2. When it would mean not starving niggers to death via the IMF. 3. When it would mean not torturing niggers to death.
March 07, 2006
Finish Scottie's Sentence!
Maybe I'm not being clear -- because the President has stated what his view is when it comes to the sanctity of life. He's committed to defending the sanctity of life. He is pro-life with three exceptions --
My guesses:
1. When it would mean not bombing niggers. 2. When it would mean not starving niggers to death via the IMF. 3. When it would mean not torturing niggers to death.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:20 PM
| Comments (1)
One might think (and many in the Bush Administration probably do) that, given the United States spends as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, that it should be able to control the rest of the world combined.
However logical the proposition may or may not be, the reality is another story altogether:
Just a few brief snapshots. Doesn't even include China's and Russia's slow-but-sure pulling out of Washington's orbit, nor the fallout from an attack upon Iran. Nor, of course, the likelihood of another disastrous hurricane season.
Brush Fires A-Go-Go
One might think (and many in the Bush Administration probably do) that, given the United States spends as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, that it should be able to control the rest of the world combined.
However logical the proposition may or may not be, the reality is another story altogether:
• With Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads roaming the cities, and with negotiations for a unity government perpetually breaking down, longtime Iraq observers are fearing the worst. In the words of Juan Cole, a Middle East expert who blogs frequently on the war, "Iraq is a vial of nitroglycerine that can be set off with one shake."
Some might dismiss Cole as a longtime Bush critic, but disillusion also is endemic within conservative circles; witness William F. Buckley, icon of the modern conservative movement. He contends that "the American objective in Iraq has failed" and that Bush must "submit to historical reality" and make "the acknowledgment of defeat".
• A new militant umbrella group, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, has launched attacks on oil facilities that have cut national production by 20 percent. Nigeria, with an average output of 2.5 million barrels per day, is the fifth-largest supplier to the United States.
The group was also responsible for the recent kidnappings.
It is threatening more attacks unless the government embarks on extensive new development projects, releases two of the region's political leaders who are in prison on criminal charges and curbs Nigerian military presence in the delta.
• The two cars that exploded a week ago outside the inner perimeter of Abqaiq, an oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia that is the world's largest, could have caused more loss of life and economic devastation than the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
Had the terrorists succeeded in penetrating the guarded facility and detonating their bombs inside, they might have turned the complex into an inferno, releasing toxic chemicals that could have killed and sickened thousands of locals and expatriates, including many Americans, who work and live nearby.
The damage to the world economy also would have been severe because the oil market today resembles a car without shock absorbers: The tiniest bump on the road could send consumers and prices bouncing off the ceiling.
That wasn't always the case. Once there was enough wiggle room in the oil market to deal with occasional supply disruptions.
• At a rural military base on the outskirts of Caracas, officers have started classes in unconventional warfare to repel an invasion that President Hugo Chávez has hinted that Washington is planning.
• Venezuela's oil minister, in blunt comments published in a Caracas newspaper, has warned Washington that it could steer oil exports away from the United States and toward other markets. The minister, Rafael Ramírez, said that Venezuela, which is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and supplies more than 10 percent of U.S. oil imports, could act in the face of what he described as aggression by the Bush administration.
• Between bad press, accusations, governmental threats and investigation requests, Freeport-McMoRan has been feeling the heat in Indonesia of late. This month alone, investors were bruised with a 20% drop in share prices amid continuing protests and disturbances at the company’s flagship Grasberg mine and company offices. Is Indonesia becoming too hostile for foreign miners? [...]
Last Tuesday, Freeport was forced to suspend operations in Papua after 500 locals set up barricades on a road leading to the site. The desperately poor locals were demanding the right to illegally sift through and sell tiny amounts of gold and copper in the tailings river, according to Adkerson.
“The area they were doing this in is very dangerous; there have been mud slides and water events where people have drowned,” said Adkerson.
Police came in to sweep them out and there were more locals than expected. The people reacted by throwing stones and ultimately created a rudimentary roadblock that blocked access from the town site to the mill, Adkerson said.
• Protests against the administration of President General Pervez Musharraf and against the U.S. took off in Pakistan about a month ago in the guise of rallies denouncing caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
These protests have now reached the stronghold of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan: the self-proclaimed "Islamic State of North Waziristan", a volatile tribal area on the border with Afghanistan.
For the past few days this region has been the scene of fierce battles between the Pakistani armed forces and the Taliban and their supporters. This, analysts believe, is the starting point of taking the nascent Tehrik-i-Nizam-i-Mustafa movement to other areas in Pakistan, that is, to enforce the Prophet Mohammed's way of life, or sharia law, on society. Underground Islamic radical groups will surface in support of this struggle that could ultimately lead to the ousting of the Musharraf government.
Just a few brief snapshots. Doesn't even include China's and Russia's slow-but-sure pulling out of Washington's orbit, nor the fallout from an attack upon Iran. Nor, of course, the likelihood of another disastrous hurricane season.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:31 PM
| Comments (0)
Had enough? The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee is ready to help you get started resisting your taxes...
March 06, 2006
Two More Reasons To Not Pay Your Taxes
• Treasury Secretary John Snow notified Congress today that the administration has now taken "all prudent and legal actions", including tapping certain government retirement funds, to keep from hitting the $8.2 trillion national debt limit. [...]
Officials have said that once the debt limit is raised, the investments taken out of the pension funds would be replaced and any lost interest payments would be made up.
• The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that military recruiters must have the same kind of access as other employers coming onto campus to give out information and conduct job interviews, if the campus receives federal money. Most campuses rely on some share of the $35 billion the government channels each year to higher education.
Had enough? The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee is ready to help you get started resisting your taxes...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:50 AM
| Comments (0)
More proof that the re-election of Gee-Dub was an essential step forward: would a Kerry Administration have induced the New York Times to "look too hard into the public's business"? No way!
Of couse, the proof is not yet in the pudding: Keller's words may be just hot air. But if the Times rises to the challenge, it would be a great day for American democracy.
It could start by noting yet another slam-dunk-obvious contradiction by the Bush Administration. Here's Bush from the same story:
That's the company line, of course (ridiculous as it is): the NSA leak tipped off to al Qaeda that the Bush Administration is watching it. Yet, just a few days ago, CBS News reported that
Nobody, to this blogger's knowledge, has pointed up the contradiction. Further, nowhere in the Post piece quoted above -- which is rife with Administration fulminations against leakers -- is it noted that if the NSA spying programme is illegal (as it surely appears to be), then its exposure is not a leak, but an instance of whistle-blowing; in which case the "leakers" should not, legally, be prosecuted, but rather protected from prosecution.
So, so far Keller appears to be blowing smoke. But we'll see.
Quote Of The Moment
"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a statement. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."
More proof that the re-election of Gee-Dub was an essential step forward: would a Kerry Administration have induced the New York Times to "look too hard into the public's business"? No way!
Of couse, the proof is not yet in the pudding: Keller's words may be just hot air. But if the Times rises to the challenge, it would be a great day for American democracy.
It could start by noting yet another slam-dunk-obvious contradiction by the Bush Administration. Here's Bush from the same story:
President Bush has called the NSA leak "a shameful act" that was "helping the enemy", and said in December that he hoped the Justice Department would conduct a full investigation into the disclosure.
That's the company line, of course (ridiculous as it is): the NSA leak tipped off to al Qaeda that the Bush Administration is watching it. Yet, just a few days ago, CBS News reported that
U.S. officials tell CBS News that intelligence has picked up reports that al Qaeda in Iraq is planning what one source calls the "Big Bang", a spectacular terrorist attack in Iraq against either a single high-profile target or multiple targets simultaneously.
Nobody, to this blogger's knowledge, has pointed up the contradiction. Further, nowhere in the Post piece quoted above -- which is rife with Administration fulminations against leakers -- is it noted that if the NSA spying programme is illegal (as it surely appears to be), then its exposure is not a leak, but an instance of whistle-blowing; in which case the "leakers" should not, legally, be prosecuted, but rather protected from prosecution.
So, so far Keller appears to be blowing smoke. But we'll see.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:55 AM
| Comments (0)
...Trent Lott, of all people, says of you that, "I didn't think his choice of words there was really good."
* * *
...your presence at any place on the globe touches off massive riots, but your life and limb are dependent upon a security service comprised of "fools":
March 03, 2006
You Know You're A Fuck-Stick When...
...Trent Lott, of all people, says of you that, "I didn't think his choice of words there was really good."
...your presence at any place on the globe touches off massive riots, but your life and limb are dependent upon a security service comprised of "fools":
"We have made foolproof arrangements for the safe stay of President Bush and we do not think there will be any problem," said Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, a senior Interior Ministry official who also coordinates with U.S. authorities on counterterrorism issues.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:04 AM
| Comments (0)
The release of a new CBS News poll showing Bush's approval rating dropping to 34 percent, a low for him in that survey, sent tremors through Republican circles in Washington. Scott Reed, who managed Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, called the results "pretty shattering". Most distressing to GOP strategists was that Bush's support among Republicans fell from 83 percent to 72 percent.
March 01, 2006
Fucking Liberal Republicans
The release of a new CBS News poll showing Bush's approval rating dropping to 34 percent, a low for him in that survey, sent tremors through Republican circles in Washington. Scott Reed, who managed Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, called the results "pretty shattering". Most distressing to GOP strategists was that Bush's support among Republicans fell from 83 percent to 72 percent.